Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Devil's Advocate: Subjectivism

Philosophy et.cetera: Re: Pharmacists who find it ...

2005-02-08T16:50:30.860-05:00

Philosophy et.cetera: Re: Pharmacists who find it morally right to refuse to dispense the contraceptive Plan B. Does the reasons/intent/motive(either they think of Plan B as an abortifact or it will increase teenage promiscuity) make the pharmacist's actions morally right? I get confused when we, class, talk about subjectivism, relativism, consequentialism,et. Any added insight would be appreciated. Thank you, sincerely, Bill Trembley, Urbana, Il.

Posted by Bill Trembley

Philosophy et.cetera: Re: Pharmacists who find it ...

2005-02-08T16:44:19.320-05:00

I figured this discussion deserved a post of it's ...

2005-01-22T00:21:01.436-05:00

I figured this discussion deserved a post of it's own... see here.

Posted by Richard

"That sounds pretty awful to me. If homosexuality ...

2005-01-21T22:36:32.516-05:00

"That sounds pretty awful to me. If homosexuality could be shown to be (in some biological sense) "unnatural", would you really accept that as a good reason to consider it immoral!?"

Yes I would. Homosexuality, though, is not necessarily unnatural.

Nor is rape proper to man's nature. Because this is a more obvious difficulty with the maxim I've advocated, let me focus on the question of rape.

I believe that man's fundamental nature--the part of his nature that is more important than all others--is that he (or she) is capable of making complex long-range plans: We plant in the spring and harvest in the fall, or loan money at interest, or design microchips. This long-range planning is both unique to humans and our chief means of survival (as large vertebrates go, we're quite puny otherwise). Because these things constitute our nature, it is wrong to violate the essential nature of another. This would include rape, which is wrong because it violates the ability of the raped individual to act according to the plans that they have made.

I hope I've cleared things up, but please let me know if I have not. This idea is more or less a derivation of Ayn Rand, but it's easy to see in Aristotle as well--and in Henry Veatch, another great modern exponent of Aristotle.

Posted by Jason Kuznicki

"What is the nature of man? Actions that are in ac...

2005-01-21T22:03:10.556-05:00

"What is the nature of man? Actions that are in accordance with that nature are good, while those that go against it are evil."

That sounds pretty awful to me. If homosexuality could be shown to be (in some biological sense) "unnatural", would you really accept that as a good reason to consider it immoral!? Rape is arguably natural, yet I gather from your earlier comments that you do not consider it morally good.

Morality is about not doing harm. This is a topic nature sadly knows little about.

Perhaps you mean 'nature' in some normative (rather than biological/descriptive) sense. But then that would presumably derive from morality, not the other way around, so I don't see that it sheds any light here.

Posted by Richard

If we adopt Richard's view of subjectivism, it is ...

2005-01-21T11:47:16.736-05:00

If we adopt Richard's view of subjectivism, it is indeed silly. But I would suggest that Illusive Mind's formulation of subjectivism here is just as ridiculous: If no action is ever right or wrong, then there is no reason for doing anything--and one may as well choose one's actions wholly at random. Yet this, I would argue, is inconsistent with what we observe even in merely biological nature, where very little at all is left to random chance, and where we definitely observe animals acting according to some form of natural plan.

The question then becomes: What is the nature of man? Actions that are in accordance with that nature are good, while those that go against it are evil.

Posted by Jason Kuznicki

I agree with your characterisation of cultural rel...

2005-01-21T04:05:25.833-05:00

I agree with your characterisation of cultural relativism. I think it is silly to suggest that certain values may be right because they are specific to a culture. I think originally cultural relativism wasn’t suggesting this at all but rather that as human beings we create values specific to our culture. To admit this though would deny us our righteousness.

However you are engendering a false dichotomy in reference to moral growth Richard. Subjectivism would hold that the individual is neither wrong nor right about his own morality nor any future deviations thereof. At least I think that is true in the formulation of subjectivism as I see it.

Posted by Illusive Mind

As I understand it, 'moral relativism' is a more g...

2005-01-21T02:53:07.756-05:00

As I understand it, 'moral relativism' is a more general term which covers any non-objective metaethical theory.

'Subjectivism', then, is the specific case where morality is relative to the individual.

'Cultural relativism' is entirely different - it states that morals are relative to a culture, which has the absurd result that moral reformers like MLK are actually doing wrong! (This theory is most often espoused by unthinking leftists who mistakenly believe it is somehow conducive to tolerance.)

I suppose a similar objection could be made to subjectivism: namely, that it makes personal moral growth impossible. According to subjectivism, the individual cannot possibly be wrong about morality - for they are the sole standard for their moral judgments. So any deviation from our past beliefs would seem to be immoral of us! This is clearly silly. Sometimes we do change our mind about moral issues, and decide that what we used to believe was in fact wrong - and that we are now the morally better for having learnt this. More in my next post...

Posted by Richard

Just for clarifications sake... is there a differ...

2005-01-21T02:37:51.570-05:00

Just for clarifications sake... is there a difference between subjectivism and relativism? I tend to conflate the two terms, and even though I've done a modest amount of reading in metaethics, I've never really been sure what the difference is, if any. Richard, I notice that you seem to do that too, so I thought I would ask, for the sake of us all.

Posted by Peter